Interesting observation on SANFL

[darley16]

The following is both an interesting observation and maybe underscores a future potential problem for not just, in this instance SAFC but maybe long term SANFL development of youth. Ron always contibutes insightful and honest comments not only of footy but the broader community that impacts both his club and the SANFL.
Ronny's Blog


Southern Youth

Tuesday 1st February - By Ronny's Blog



I ran into a person recently who was aware that I was coaching South Adelaide and she spoke to me about her experiences in the area.

This lady is someone who has worked in the community with young people both around Noarlunga as well as around Elizabeth and what she had to say was quite interesting.

I had mentioned that there were a lot of young players who at the age of 18 or 19 dropped out of the SANFL to go back to local football or just do nothing.

She understood what I was talking about and said that in the Northern areas a lot of young people drop out of disciplines too but more because of a lack of support or direction from their families.

They have a harder edge from the North she said but when they decide they want to do something they do it with a passion and successfully.

In the South however, young people drop out, predominantly because of laziness.

They have support to a degree but find it preferable to go to the beach, go out drinking or just hang around doing very little.

The families tend not to interfere and are more about apathy than anything, with all parties suffering from just not caring enough.

She suggested that most that started their football at South Adelaide do have a want to play league football, but those that fell away just didn’t want to pay the price to do so.

We have many who do want to pay that price though and I mentioned that I wasn’t prepared to spend too much time on those that didn’t want it enough, preferring to put all my energies into the ones who want to do everything they get to get there.

I expected a rebuttal from this person, who is community minded, but to my surprise she said that is exactly what I should be doing.

She said I could spend a lot of time trying to change them, but for all but a very small minority, they will always choose the easy way out.

It has to be the players choice to make it happen.

It is a shame of course but young people like Jake Veide, Jacob Crate, Curtis Perrey, Nick Murphy, Andrew Carter, Sam Richman, Sean Beath, Brad Crabb, Tom Johnson, Tom Butler, Rhys McKay, Todd McKay, Chris Black, Emmanuel Irra, Zac Cameron, Alex Moyle, Jarrad Bollenhagen, Keegan Brooksby and others in our zone who want to make it, deserve our attention because they have the required attitudes.

I have seen the standard of football in local competitions and it has to be said that anyone who wants to play football, would only play in these competitions if they aren’t good enough or don’t want to do the work required to play in the SANFL.

That is what these competitions are for of course, but it is disappointing that some of the local clubs entice players back using the less commitment and a few dollars as a carrot, rather than encourage them to be the best they can.

As I said though, we will continue to promote an environment where those who really want to be the best they can will get a great opportunity.

I can assure everyone that anyone who has the ability to play senior football and wants to do everything they can to make it, will make it.

All they need to have is honesty in all their endeavors.

It is no co-incidence that commitment and character in life parallels footballs needs too.



Ron Fuller

[HOORAY PUNT]

He hasn't said anything really as this has always been the case IMO. Some have the desire to do it some don't . Maybe if the SANFL made it a little more attractive for these young kids to play money wise they may see a benefit to the hard work , however the AFL saw to that by reducing the cap. I am sure Fuller isn't doing it for the love of it either.

[EAGLES]

and is this the reason why South wants their catchment area expanded?

"It isn't fair, our kids are lazy"

[nickname]

and is this the reason why South wants their catchment area expanded?

"It isn't fair, our kids are lazy"

It's an interesting point. The SANFL can only equalise numbers, they can't equalise quality or interest.

[darley16]

Amazing, after reading the article you clowns take that as the point being made , can't moderate stupidity

[sjt]

Amazing, after reading the article you clowns take that as the point being made , can't moderate stupidity

Perhaps when Ron writes " In the South however, young people drop out, predominantly because of laziness.", "posters" may believe him.
Agreed, it wasn't the only point, but have to admit it seemed like a dominant one. Your interpretation Darley?
Also, I'm sure every club has the same problem, to different degrees.

[darley16]

sjt Ron is not suggesting by any means South wanting a fairer distribution zone due to youth player laziness or lack of interest, it has nothing to do with zones! Your point that every club has this problem is more to the point together with lesser league's handing over $$ far too easily. The issue is broad enough to cover all the SANFL with particular reference to SAFC by way of example.

[sjt]

sjt Ron is not suggesting by any means South wanting a fairer distribution zone due to youth player laziness or lack of interest, it has nothing to do with zones! Your point that every club has this problem is more to the point together with lesser league's handing over $$ far too easily. The issue is broad enough to cover all the SANFL with particular reference to SAFC by way of example.

Agreed, players in different areas "drop out" for different reasons. The "lady" may be right, in the North it's due lack of family support, in the South predominantly laziness and at Westies etc etc it may be for another reason.
As HP wrote, I think the $$ are a big issue. Again, raising previous issues, the cut in salary cap by the AFL is very detrimental to our competition. I'd guess, in excess of 10 regular league players have left from 2010, due at least in part the $$$ (which Ron also points out).

[nickname]

Amazing, after reading the article you clowns take that as the point being made , can't moderate stupidity

No one said that was the point being made by Fuller. It's an observation/question made by two posters.

[nickname]

sjt Ron is not suggesting by any means South wanting a fairer distribution zone due to youth player laziness or lack of interest, it has nothing to do with zones!

Obviously he's not suggesting it, but in the context of South's desire for the SANFL to redraw their boundary it's a relevant point for us to raise. South say they need a bigger zone because their participation rates are lower. How is the SANFL supposed to cater for that? Canvas all the eligible males in South Australia to find out their level of commitment to playing SANFL?

[Bunton]

sjt Ron is not suggesting by any means South wanting a fairer distribution zone due to youth player laziness or lack of interest, it has nothing to do with zones!

Obviously he's not suggesting it, but in the context of South's desire for the SANFL to redraw their boundary it's a relevant point for us to raise. South say they need a bigger zone because their participation rates are lower. How is the SANFL supposed to cater for that?


... by splitting up the zones so each clubs has access to a similar amount of participants - it's not brain surgery.

[nickname]

sjt Ron is not suggesting by any means South wanting a fairer distribution zone due to youth player laziness or lack of interest, it has nothing to do with zones!

Obviously he's not suggesting it, but in the context of South's desire for the SANFL to redraw their boundary it's a relevant point for us to raise. South say they need a bigger zone because their participation rates are lower. How is the SANFL supposed to cater for that?


... by splitting up the zones so each clubs has access to a similar amount of participants - it's not brain surgery.

It certainly isn't. Splitting up the numbers on the basis of participation rates isn't necessarily going to help you. For example, you've got plenty of 'participants' in your zone who don't want to play League footy. Getting another bunch like that from someone else's zone will not change a thing.

It also doesn't take into account the fact that some clubs are better than others at working their zones, and that some clubs are more attractive to play for than others.

[Bunton]

what the? 'participants' are the numbers of kids actually playing footy in each zone - south has less kids playing footy at local clubs that all other clubs. by extending the boundary, south could then have a similar number of participants to pick from that other clubs have ...

[nickname]

Okay, is a 17 or 18 year-old kid - the sort that Fuller is talking about in his blog - who plays at a local club in South's zone but who doesn't aspire to playing League footy, counted as a 'participant'?

[DOC]

Okay, is a 17 or 18 year-old kid - the sort that Fuller is talking about in his blog - who plays at a local club in South's zone but who doesn't aspire to playing League footy, counted as a 'participant'?

Participants are at various age groups, the main one being at 15 years of age. This is the key criterion and one of Souths major problems.

Do not underestimate the power of the near clubs in the near country, Southern and Great Southern Football leagues to entice players away from league football (with reference to Ron's statement that they dangle dollars and less commitment). This has been and is a big problem for us and I acknowledge that Centrals can be faced with it as well as they have strong leagues on their doorstep.

[Pag]

Okay, is a 17 or 18 year-old kid - the sort that Fuller is talking about in his blog - who plays at a local club in South's zone but who doesn't aspire to playing League footy, counted as a 'participant'?

Participants are at various age groups, the main one being at 15 years of age. This is the key criterion and one of Souths major problems.

Do not underestimate the power of the near clubs in the near country, Southern and Great Southern Football leagues to entice players away from league football (with reference to Ron's statement that they dangle dollars and less commitment). This has been and is a big problem for us and I acknowledge that Centrals can be faced with it as well as they have strong leagues on their doorstep.

Clubs in the Adelaide Plains and Barossa, Light & Gawler Football Leagues, as well as the northern region of the SAAFL, try to do this as well. But rom where I sit, as a teacher in a northeren suburbs, Centrals make very good connections from kids at an early age, and the kids grow up barracking for the Dogs and wanting to play for them more than any other club (including their local). There are exceptions of course, but for the majority, red, white and blue is ingrained in them from an early age. Trent Goodrem is always on the other end of the phone and is always willing to come out to schools with a couple of others and take clinics, give talks etc.

Not sure how much of this South do, but this sort of stuff makes kids want to play for Centrals from before they're 10 years old.

[Sojourner]

Remember vividly being at a South vs Norwood match three years ago and watching Curtis Perry play a league match for South whom at that stage spent more time in the magoos than in the league side, yet what came through was the sheer tenacity the lad had/s to try and improve himself, Perry went back to the reserves for most of the season, yet continued to apply himself and is making the club pick him on what he has improved and moved forward on in his ability to play the game, he reminds me a lot of Leyton Hewitt who has given himself success based around his sheer tenacity and ability to keep going when its getting difficult. The more players like Perry we have the in the side at South, the sooner we really will turn the corner and become competitive at SANFL level.

[southee]

My point is....

As a young player, who is more interested in playing with mates, can party after games, train 2 times a week (at best) and dont have to explain if they are late or dont come to training .......and get paid $ 300 plus ($600 plus for a gun) a game with their local SFL or GSFL clubs.

....or play and bust their butts, train 6 times a week, go to team meetings, get scrutinised with every kick, handball, stopage or decision they do, have curfews, train 6am Sunday mornings, get yelled at by coaches/assistants/supporters etc with South (or any other SANFL club)......and get paid $50.00 in the reserves.

As a young up and coming kid......I think the above is the root of the problem.

Money talks to kids .......reality is "show me the money" is what they really want. Pride of wearing the jumper is a thing of the past unfortunately.

[Grahaml]

Clubs should be encouraged to help increase participation rates and reap the benefit if they succeed. If South were to manage to get more lads taking up the game, should we reward them by shrinking their zone?

The current system is perfect. Try to balance the number of kids in total across the entire metropolitan area as well as possible and if some clubs do things better then they should earn the rewards that brings. If we take that away from them then we're just moving towards a socialist football system more and more.

[Locky]

Well said Grahaml!

If kids in your zone don't want to play footy, then get off your backside and do something about it.

Re-zoning on participation numbers? Smart clubs will withdraw support from any young players without the potential to become SANFL players, and command an ever expanding zone of small numbers of top quality talent.

I do acknowledge that this was not Ron's point in the article, and that there is an issue with amateur clubs being able to offer more $$$ that SANFL clubs, but in the context of current discussions re zones, you get the impression Ron is trying to also make the point his club is affected worse than most.